• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breaking: ISIS claims having shot down the Russian Airliner with 224 Dead

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Darwin333 said:
Really easy to see from satellite and not exactly easy to steal or otherwise procure. Then you still need people who know how to use it. It's not just point and shoot or something you jump in and figure out all by yourself.
Click to expand...

They could probably make them that way in the 21st century, but I doubt the American military or industrial complex is willing to spend the required money to do so right now.
 
The airliner in question was involved in a tail-first landing. They have a term for it that escapes me at the moment. It's when the tail of the aircraft touches the runway before the back wheels. Repairs were made but what is unknown is the quality of the repair and how many cycles the aircraft has been through afterwards, etc.

With that in mind, supposedly the tail section of the aircraft was found quite intact three miles from the rest of the debris. The black boxes have been found.

I believe this is just ISIS doing their usual bit. This should be a relatively easy investigation into determining the cause. Of course, I don't know how much politics will factor in over there. Russia probably doesn't want shoddy repairs making headlines should that be the case.
 
In order of probability (given what is currently known/reported) :

1) Issue with the plane itself (mechanical, etc.)
2) bomb
3) human error
.
.
.
.
32425) ISIS shoot down
 
My money is on structural failure due to incomplete or improper repairs from the tailstrike leading to explosive decompression and break up of the aircraft.

They found the tail section three miles from the rest of the plane so it came off first and the pics I saw don't look like bomb damage.
 
boomerang said:
The airliner in question was involved in a tail-first landing. They have a term for it that escapes me at the moment. It's when the tail of the aircraft touches the runway before the back wheels. Repairs were made but what is unknown is the quality of the repair and how many cycles the aircraft has been through afterwards, etc.

With that in mind, supposedly the tail section of the aircraft was found quite intact three miles from the rest of the debris. The black boxes have been found.

I believe this is just ISIS doing their usual bit. This should be a relatively easy investigation into determining the cause. Of course, I don't know how much politics will factor in over there. Russia probably doesn't want shoddy repairs making headlines should that be the case.
Click to expand...

I think the term is shitty pilot
 
norseamd said:
They could probably make them that way in the 21st century, but I doubt the American military or industrial complex is willing to spend the required money to do so right now.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, it takes a ton of fuel to get a missile with a warhead and the required electronics to guide it to the target, its a lot harder when the plane is so high and moving so fast, can't exactly get a heat lock from the ground. So you gotta have the electronics (radar) to get a good idea of where the plane will be so the missile can get close enough to get a heat lock. Still, just the fuel to get the warhead from a stinger that high somehow magically going in a straight line from the ground to where the aircraft would be without any additional tracking or guidance would probably be more than could be carried by a man.

If that was even remotely possible you wouldn't see those huge tracked SAM vehicles still being built and upgraded. Could you imagine the huge defensive advantage to a country like Russia if they had legitimate man portable SAMs? Air superiority would be virtually impossible for all but a very few of our aircraft.
 
Darwin333 said:
I doubt it, it takes a ton of fuel to get a missile with a warhead and the required electronics to guide it to the target, its a lot harder when the plane is so high and moving so fast, can't exactly get a heat lock from the ground. So you gotta have the electronics (radar) to get a good idea of where the plane will be so the missile can get close enough to get a heat lock. Still, just the fuel to get the warhead from a stinger that high somehow magically going in a straight line from the ground to where the aircraft would be without any additional tracking or guidance would probably be more than could be carried by a man.

If that was even remotely possible you wouldn't see those huge tracked SAM vehicles still being built and upgraded. Could you imagine the huge defensive advantage to a country like Russia if they had legitimate man portable SAMs? Air superiority would be virtually impossible for all but a very few of our aircraft.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that with the advanced state of 21st century electronics and ergonomics, you could probably turn a long-range vehicle SAM into something that a 3rd grader could use, with the computer performing automated computations in combination with the radar data, and thus greatly simplifying the required user actions.
 
I hadn't seen this before:

pilot after he radioed that the aircraft was experiencing technical problems and that he needed to make an emergency landing.

The wife of the co-pilot of the plane that crashed said late Saturday her husband had complained about the plane's condition, according to a Russian TV channel.

In an interview with state-controlled NTV, Natalya Trukhacheva, identified as the wife of co-pilot Sergei Trukachev, said her daughter "called him up before he flew out. He complained before the flight that the technical condition of the aircraft left much to be desired."
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure if it was a bomb or a missile the pilot wouldn't have said the plane was experiencing technical difficulties. It's possible he could have thought an explosion was caused by a fan blade shattering or something but I still find it unlikely.
 
norseamd said:
What I meant is that with the advanced state of 21st century electronics and ergonomics, you could probably turn a long-range vehicle SAM into something that a 3rd grader could use, with the computer performing automated computations in combination with the radar data, and thus greatly simplifying the required user actions.
Click to expand...

Ahh, fair enough point.
 
If the tail section broke off the rest of the plane would tumble. At that speed it would break the plane apart. In this scenario the heat flash is the fuel igniting.
 
Genx87 said:
If the tail section broke off the rest of the plane would tumble. At that speed it would break the plane apart. In this scenario the heat flash is the fuel igniting.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I'm not finding an altitude tied to the heat flash, but were this to be 33k feet, crusing altitude, vs say <30k feet then it might shed a bit more light on what happened.

Black box should make for definitive assessment here regarding tail section failure vs other.
 
Genx87 said:
If the tail section broke off the rest of the plane would tumble. At that speed it would break the plane apart. In this scenario the heat flash is the fuel igniting.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure a plane travelling at 400mph or more would explode from the fuel -- possible but not likely. Getting any fuel to light in such winds is difficult and with jet fuel even more so. In the combusters of jet engines they need to slow the air velocity in certain areas using things called "flame holders" and in these areas the fuel/air is ignited. Once ignited the rest will burn.

My guess is a small bomb that destroyed some critical systems leading to loss of control of the plane and at high speed that would cause the plane to break up.

OTH, if the report about the spy satellite seeing a flash is true then either the bomb was big enough to do that (unlikely) or it did cause the fuel to ignite. If the fuel ignited it's more likely it did so inside the tanks!


Brian
 
Brian Stirling said:
I'm not so sure a plane travelling at 400mph or more would explode from the fuel -- possible but not likely. Getting any fuel to light in such winds is difficult and with jet fuel even more so. In the combusters of jet engines they need to slow the air velocity in certain areas using things called "flame holders" and in these areas the fuel/air is ignited. Once ignited the rest will burn.

My guess is a small bomb that destroyed some critical systems leading to loss of control of the plane and at high speed that would cause the plane to break up.

OTH, if the report about the spy satellite seeing a flash is true then either the bomb was big enough to do that (unlikely) or it did cause the fuel to ignite. If the fuel ignited it's more likely it did so inside the tanks!


Brian
Click to expand...

No, it isn't so unlikely. Multiple aircrafts have been brought down by fuel tank explosions during flight. The most famous is TWA 800.

Sad thing is their is a very cheap fix that will prevent fuel tanka from exploding. Cost like $100 a plane but the government won't require it. It is used in nearly all military planes though.
 
DCal430 said:
No, it isn't so unlikely. Multiple aircrafts have been brought down by fuel tank explosions during flight. The most famous is TWA 800.

Sad thing is their is a very cheap fix that will prevent fuel tanka from exploding. Cost like $100 a plane but the government won't require it. It is used in nearly all military planes though.
Click to expand...

The FAA passed a rule several years ago that requires nitrogen inerting of center wing tanks with compliance of half by 2014 and all by 2017. Newer planes are coming off the line with these installed. IIRC, the cost of the system installed is in the low $100K-ish range.

I am unsure if the Europeans or the Russians (probably not) require this.
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
The FAA passed a rule several years ago that requires nitrogen inerting of center wing tanks with compliance of half by 2014 and all by 2017. Newer planes are coming off the line with these installed. IIRC, the cost of the system installed is in the low $100K-ish range.

I am unsure if the Europeans or the Russians (probably not) require this.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize they made it required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top